Copper in C-Balance?

zachfishman

Active member
I just picked up some C-Balance for my new 29 to find that copper chloride is an ingredient. It's down the list quite a ways, suggesting that it's quite minimal. However, as something we reefers try to avoid at all costs, why is it even in there?

I don't see it as being a major issue, since so many have used C-Balance over the years without incident. But still... :confused:
 
All your two-part alk and calcium supplements have contaminates in them to some degree. I would assume they are listing the contaminates on the label.

This is one reason that using kalk water vs. two-part has an advantage, since kalk water allows these contaminates to precipitate out. :)

Randy discusses the contaminates in this article:

Purity of Calcium Chloride
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2004/chem.htm
 
I went with a liquid 2-part regime over my usual kalk and buffer b.c. the tank volume is so small - I'm much more likely to swing my alk and pH with powders. Thanks for the link, very informative :reading: although it makes me want to run a Polyfilter immediately. Prob a good idea anyways, I've never tested for Cu - the secondhand rock I bought came from a reef setup, but I don't know where it was before that.
 
A polyfilter may have draw backs in that many of them can only remove copper levels down to around 30 ppb, which is quite high. CupriSorb resins may be a better choice. I have been meaning to bring this up with Randy and Boomer as a dissusion.
 
A polyfilter may have draw backs in that many of them can only remove copper levels down to around 30 ppb, which is quite high. CupriSorb resins may be a better choice. I have been meaning to bring this up with Randy and Boomer as a dissusion.

For the heck of it I emailed Seachem to see if they know the minimum concentration threshold for Cuprisorb effectiveness. In the meantime, maybe I'll bring in my water to a shop for testing.
 
All of the salt mixes we use range from 2 - 15 ppb. Test kits go no lower than 100 ppb and a good meter can go as low as 10 ppb. When one is looking a Cu one needs to look at what species it is, as many specie are considered non-toxic. It is really mostly free copper we are concerned about. Cooper is also removed from a system but such things as GAC or precip onto such things as carbonates rocks, gravel and in fauna and flora, as some need Cu. Based on studies of reef tanks Cu is often found below that of NSW ~ .075 ppb. NSW is ~ 0.1 ppb - 0.4 ppb


There is some good info here on Cu and other HM

OXICITY OF TRACE ELEMENTS: TRUTH OR MYTH?
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/may2003/feature.htm
 
Boomer, I was under the impression from the tank studies that most tanks range from 10 - 30 ppb. I know Randy's tank was tested at 15 ppb and he uses kalk which will remove some heavy metals. Certainly the foods can be high in copper and other heavy metals. The results I have seen come back from AWT (I know there are many concerns about their testing) all seem to come back in the 10 -20 ppb range for the most part. Habib's article states that the bare bottom system was the worst, which does not surprise me, at 106 ppb. In Habib's tests half of the tanks were under 1 ppb, but the other half were in the range I have seen posted. The tests that Dr. Craig Bingman found were in the 10 - 30 ppb range IIRC (once we got the zeros in the proper place in his article. Ha Ha). I know that these heavy metals can get tied up quickly and most hobbyists don't seem to have problems.


How effective are CupriSorb resins compared to a polyfilter for removing heavy metals (especially copper)?

Am I correct that most hobby grade polyfilters will ony remove copper down to 30 ppb. This is what I derived from Randy's article on the subject, IIRC? :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Edit):

Bingman's results for copper (after the decimal place was put into the correct location for 6 tanks tested:
38 ppb
18 ppb
23 ppb
20 ppb
27 ppb
1.36 ppb
 
Last edited:
It was not Craig but Ron that got those numbers with the missing zero's and I forgot. I think I or you pointed it out :lol: If Craig ever saw this he would shoot you. :lol: He does not make mistakes like this ever.

Its (in) the water by Ron Shimek Ph.D.
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-02/rs/feature/index.php



Ron's NSW = 0.09 ppm but needs to be 9 ppb or 0.009 ppm. He needed to 0.09 x 100 = 9 ppb. So it is ~ 10 -30 as you stated. My veeery bad, bad error and forgetting about it :(

How effective are CupriSorb resins compared to a polyfilter for removing heavy metals (especially copper)?

Cupri over Poly and time.

Am I correct that most hobby grade polyfilters will ony remove copper down to 30 ppb.

Down to 0.040 mg/L = 40 ppb

I use to use Poly's just to see if they turned blue as blue = copper.
 
My sincere apologies to Craig. I don't want to get shot. :lol:

Thanks for filling me in on the polyfilters and Cuprisorb Boomer. 40 ppb is their limit, which is even worse, since this is above what many feel is safe at 30 ppb. :(

I was the one who stumbled on Ron's errors a while back and Randy stated that Ron got mad at him for not picking it up. Yet Randy did not have the opportunity to proof read Ron's article. :lol:

It would be nice if someone made corrections to that article since many hobbyists still read it and get confused like I did (years after the fact). :D
 
Yes, Ron is that way. I stumbled onto article were Ron was the editor and proof read it, where some guy said if you add CO2 to your water the Alk will go Up :lol: I told Randy and he gave him holy crap for not seeing such an obvious error :) It was in "Corals" magazine. Ron did in the next issue make ref that it was in error though.
 
For what it's worth here's the response from Seachem about Cuprisob's effectiveness:

Hello Zach,
Thank you for your question. There is no minimum level of copper required for CupriSorb to pull it out of the system. When placed in the filter, CupriSorb will continually remove all traces of copper, including any that may have precipitated in the sand bed. We hope this information helps, but please let us know if you have further questions. Have a nice evening!

Seachem Support
 
ncluding any that may have precipitated in the sand bed

This is sheer nonsense, matter of fact a very stupid comment. Ask yourself the question "how is a resin, a media, going to remove any copper other than that that passes through the resin" You do not dump the resin in the tank, it goes in a media bag or some filter device like a canister or box filter. If such was the case, the resin would have to dissolve and change the water chem enough to remove bound copper from the sand bed.
 
ncluding any that may have precipitated in the sand bed

This is sheer nonsense, matter of fact a very stupid comment. Ask yourself the question "how is a resin, a media, going to remove any copper other than that that passes through the resin"...

You mean the resin beads don't leave the media bag and scrub my DT for copper with little push brooms at night? :lol:
 
Boomer, I'm curious as to how copper attached to the surface of rock and sand acts in our tank. I thought that the surface copper attached to the rock & sand would leach into the water column like phosphate does. :)

Now down deep in the rock, I would assume that the copper could not contact the water and would remain. Also, copper takes forms in the sand bed when it precipitates out, sulfides I believe. These are not soluable in salt water right?
 
Last edited:
I found my answer. :lol:

Cupreous Metal (Copper, Bronze, Brass) Conservation
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/crl/conservationmanual/File12.htm

From it:

The first step in the electrochemical corrosion of copper and copper alloys is the production of cuprous ions. These, in turn, combine with the chloride in the sea water to form cuprous chloride as a major component of the corrosion layer:

Cu -e >> Cu+

Cu+ + Cl- >> CuCl

Cuprous chlorides are very unstable mineral compounds. When cupreous objects that contain cuprous chlorides are recovered and exposed to air, they inevitably continue to corrode chemically by a process in which cuprous chlorides in the presence of moisture and oxygen are hydrolyzed to form hydrochloric acid and basic cupric chloride (Oddy and Hughes 1970:188):

4CuCl + 4H2O + O2 >> CuCl2 · 3Cu(OH)2 + 2HCl

The hydrochloric acid in turn attacks the uncorroded metal to form more cuprous chloride:

2Cu + 2HCl >> 2CuCl + H2

The reactions continue until no metal remains. This chemical corrosion process is commonly referred to as 'bronze disease.' Any conservation of chloride-contaminated cupreous objects requires that the chemical action of the chlorides be inhibited either by removing the cuprous chlorides or converting them to harmless cuprous oxide. If the chemical action of the chlorides is not inhibited, cupreous objects will self-destruct over time.

Copper objects in sea water are also converted to cuprous and cupric sulfide (Cu2S and CuS) by the action of sulfate-reducing bacteria (Gettens 1964:555-556; North and MacLeod 1987:82). In anaerobic environments, the copper sulfide products are usually in the lowest oxidation state, as are the ferrous sulfides and silver sulfides. After recovery and exposure to oxygen, the cuprous sulfides undergo subsequent oxidation to a higher oxidation state, i.e., cupric sulfide. The whole chemical reaction generally proceeds along the same lines as those described earlier for iron.

Upon removal from a marine encrustation, copper and cupreous artifacts are inevitably covered with varying thicknesses of a black powdery layer of copper sulfide that imparts an unpleasing appearance. Occasionally, the corrosion process will pit the surface of the artifact, but this is more common on cupreous alloys where tin or zinc is corroded preferentially. The stable copper sulfide layer does not adversely affect the object after recovery from the sea as do copper chlorides; copper sulfides only discolor the copper, imparting an unnatural appearance to the metal, and are easily removed with commercial cleaning solvents, formic acid, or citric acid. (See North and MacLeod [1987] for a detailed discussion of the corrosion of copper, bronze, and brass in a marine environment.)
 
I found my answer.

Are you sure. Your post is on electrochemical corrosion

Ca++ + PO4 ==> CaPO4 = Apatite

Cu+ + CO3-- ==> CuCO3 like or similar to Malachite

The PO4 binds itself to the Ca++ on a Calcite/ Aragonite crystal face and the Cu++ binds itself to the CO3-- on the Calcite/Aragonite crystal face. Either of these bound ions can leach into the water as a function of a shift in pH. If you take a carbonate sand bottom with cooper in the water it will be gone in no time. This is why in disease control with fish you do not use a carbonate bottom with cooper meds, as it sucks it out of the water. Similarly, why it is not wise to have a cooper bottom with cooper meds. Hmm, copper in thank add some GAC take it out and copper test zero. Put in fish = fish dead. Hmm how is that ? Re-test copper and kit pegged. There was a pH shift and /or temp shift or salinity shift = copper goes back into solution ==> Dead Fish :) Same for the PO4 thing,

attached to the rock & sand

It is not "attached" to it it is bound to it chemically like Ca++ is bound to CO3-- giving CaCO3. It is called an Ionic Bond
 
Back
Top